It Is Time To Get Angry...

This week's letter will focus on banks and related financial matters. Of course,
this brings us squarely back to the creation of TARP. In addition to focusing
on financials, I rant a bit about ethics, integrity, and honesty, as it seems,
at times, these are largely missing in our leaders.

The wildcard in all of this is the use of TARP funds. Given that President
Elect Barack Obama is due to be inaugurated next Tuesday, a new administration
will ride herd over TARP funds. The Senate approved the remaining $350B on
Friday and some of it has already begun to flow.

Let's step back to the moment in time when Treasure Secretary Henry (Hank)
Paulson put forward the idea that the U.S. government needed to act swiftly
to forestall a financial crisis, which was eventually dubbed the Troubled Asset
Relief Program (TARP).

Paulson put forward a plan calling for $700B of relief. The plan was put forward
to buy troubled assets from financial institutions that held them in order
to contain the possible financial contagion that could infect the system. The
idea was that the government would conduct auctions for these securities and
buy them from the institutions to remove them from the companies that held
them in order to turn unhealthy firms into healthy stable firms that could
help the economy to grow. The bill was passed by Congress on October 3rd, 2008.

Fast forward to November 12th, 2008, Paulson gave a speech which included
the following paragraph:

"During the two weeks that Congress considered the legislation, market conditions
worsened considerably. It was clear to me by the time the bill was signed on
October 3rd that we needed to act quickly and forcefully, and that purchasing
troubled assets - our initial focus - would take time to implement and would
not be sufficient given the severity of the problem. In consultation with the
Federal Reserve, I determined that the most timely, effective step to improve
credit market conditions was to strengthen bank balance sheets quickly through
direct purchases of equity in banks." Did Paulson say that he knew he wouldn't
do what he said he would before Congress even passed the legislation? Did Paulson
lie?

In the blink of an eye, the focus of TARP would not be on buying up troubled
assets but rather on injecting capital into our financials institutions, primarily
the large banks. Nine large banks received funding of up to $25B each out of
the originally $350B allocated using up about half of the then allocated funds.
The government decided to specifically interfere to prop up the large financial
institutions in an attempt to bring order to the financial system, which was
dangerously close to imploding.

Let's wander down another path before we bring things into focus at present
day.

Adam Smith started to write his "Wealth of Nations" in 1766 after touring
about France from 1764-1766. He observed the effects of government interference
(taxation) on the economy and looked through the prism of moral philosophy.
He was educated in moral philosophy at University of Glasgow and Oxford. He
is generally recognized as the father of modern economics. He advocated free
markets but was clear in the free markets must function within an ethical and
moral society. In fact, his "Theory of Moral Sentiments" was published in 1759
and argues that human communication relies on sympathy between agent and spectator.

In the Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, he argued that a free market
would arrive at the right amount of variety of goods, guided by a so-called "invisible
hand". The underlying belief is that while human motives are often driven by
selfishness and greed, the competition in the free market would tend to benefit
society as a whole by keeping prices low while still building an incentive
for a wide variety of goods and services. He was wary of businessmen and argued
against the formation of monopolies.

A popular quote from the Wealth of Nations is, "It is not from the benevolence
of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from
their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity
but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of
their advantages."

What was important to Adam Smith was that an efficient market could be arrived
at by allowing competition to occur. This required an ethical and moral backdrop
in which this competition occurred. It didn't depend on individuals to act
with society's interest at heart, but rather their own. It did, however, presuppose
that the government would act in society's interest or rather, that the government
must act in society's interest. He had observed what happened when the government
upset this healthy competition by imposing taxation without representation,
and denied or unbalanced competition through the creation of monopolies or
significant barriers to competition.

At the time, there were no central banks. In fact, there was little regulation
and the government regularly allowed and established monopolies which afforded
profit opportunities to the government, and in particular, to those positioned
in the government. The obvious conflict of interest wasn't the subject of public
scrutiny that it would be today.

Central banks establish and modify monetary policy and the banks follow that
policy. In addition, the government has regulatory bodies, such as the Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC) that is supposed to safeguard citizens and market
participants from fraud and manipulation. Federal Accounting Standards Body
(FASB) is the government body that sets the standards and is enforced by government
regulatory agencies. Fiscal policy is a combination of what the executive branch
crafts and what Congress approves.

It is obvious that the invisible hand that allows competition to foster and
which, theoretically, delivers efficient markets isn't detached from manipulation
in financial markets. Manipulation, in this sense, isn't necessarily sinister
but it is intentional. The consequences of the manipulation aren't necessarily
known, in advance and the market must react to that manipulation.

We are going to continue to explore this theme in future letters as we learn
more about what is happening to banks. We'll explore how the government policies
and regulation affect earnings, the adoption of risk, and whether or not we
can believe what we are being told by the government finance ministers and
leaders in the banking industry.

Market Outlook and Conclusion

Our outlook for equities hasn't changed. They will eventually retest the bottom.
The Q408 earnings have been disappointing, as we suggested and the investors
are reacting in a predictable manner to bad news. If anything, the buoyant
market late in the week is ignoring the bad news and we would expect more downside
ahead.

The credit markets continue to improve, which means that credit will be flowing
to credit-worthy borrowers and the credit crisis will indeed pass in 2009.
The TED Spread ended the week at 1.03, which shows continued improvement as
it works its way down to the 0.80 level in coming weeks.

Oil continues to move lower. We are likely near a bottom for oil as the reduction
in excess supply is actually occurring more rapidly than is generally obvious.
Even as OPEC has move to cut approximately 5% of their production, U.S. production
has actually declined 25%! Speculators are buying oil and leaving it on tankers
anchored offshore, waiting for prices to lift. Once a bottom in oil is found,
the bounce will help establish a trading range that will be healthy for the
economy and the oil producers.

We are now waiting for the retest of the lows before committing more funds
to long positions and actively looking to add to short trades where we feel
the assets have moved to excess, such as in the long bond trades.

We have been lied to! (Mark's Rant)

I don't like being lied to. Most people don't like being lied to. Only the
cynical expect to be lied to, and I don't consider myself a generally cynical
person.

I am appalled at the state of ethical bankruptcy we find ourselves currently
living in. I will share some short examples of what I mean, giving incoming
President Barack Obama a pass at this time.

How many times have we heard of our elected officials committing crimes while
in office? I mean, it isn't as if they are sworn in to uphold the office to
which they are elected, right? (OK, I guess I am a little cynical). Blagojevich
is a recent example of a politician who claims to have done nothing illegal.
As the governor of Illinois, he is tasked with replacing Barack Obama's vacancy
in the Senate. He marketed the Senate seat and was looking to sell it to the
highest bidder! I am not certain that a law was violated, but the public trust
certainly was. It is the lack of apology for unethical behavior that really
galls me. It is arrogance which presumes that if it can not be proved to be
illegal, it is acceptable.

Here is probably the most famous example of the same sort of behavior. Former
President Bill Clinton explained, "what is is?" Mind you, this was under oath
to the Grand Jury. The context was his denial to his aids that anything was
going on between himself and Monica Lewinsky. This is a case where all observers
knew Clinton had lied but he created a legal argument that his lie was time
sensitive and therefore couldn't be proven to be a lie. He was just smarter
than everyone else and was able to legally dodge the bullet.

We will mention, in passing, Richard Nixon's famous, "I am not a crook" statement.
Of course, being impeached and tossed out of office suggests that he wasn't
able to escape the legal consequences of being behind a break-in to the offices
of the opposition party. How about even George H Bush's famous "Read My Lips,
no new taxes" statement that cost him an election. We could take a shot a George
W Bush but we will allow him to scurry out of office and be out of the spotlight
for awhile.

Closing about elected officials, I will leave you with a thought. Do you really
believe that candidates running for office will keep their campaign promises?
I mean, how about the majority of them? Well, do you believe that they believed
that they would keep them when they uttered them or do you think that they
said what they had to in order to get elected? This is where they cynical bunch
says, "so what's your point?" For those less cynical, you really need to ponder
the state of affairs where the vast majority of the electorate believes that
they are being lied to daily during the campaign season. Certainly, if not
their own candidate lying to them, the other party's candidate is surely lying.
There is something wrong that it is so clear to voters that they are being
lied to.

Let's move on to corporate leaders, which is what started me into this rant
in the first place. The catalyst for this was Apple's lapse into the obscurity,
again.

Apple has been an innovator for decades. In 1984 they offered the Macintosh.
It was David versus Goliath (The IBM PC was Goliath). The competed and won
market share and forever changed personal computer landscape. It was cutting
edge marketing and a focus on improving technology by designing it the way
people like to work that enabled Apple to be successful. The genius behind
the marketing of Apple is CEO Steve Jobs.

Jobs suffers from a rare form of cancer and Apple's past history of being
up front and honest about this is checkered, at best. Then there was the options
backdating scandal that cost Apple's CFO his job, while Jobs held onto his
position. Most recently, Jobs health was called into question and he offered
a vague explanation of a hormone imbalance that wouldn't affect his ability
to do his job. A week later, Apple issued a statement that Jobs would take
time off until June, but that he would be involved in all strategic decisions.
I mean, does anyone believe Apple anymore? They spin everything, and they are
very good at it. At this point, investors expect that their PR department will
lie about anything meaningful, and then won't really admit they were lying
but will give the minimum ground that they have to in order to let the issue
move out of the spotlight.

Finally, Bank of America's CEO Ken Lewis told investors seven months ago that
BofA's dividend was safe and there was no need to reduce it. At the time, it
was paying sixty-four cents a quarter. A quarter later, BofA cut the dividend
in half explaining that the acquisitions of Countrywide Financial and Merrill
Lynch required that BofA needed to conserve cash. Now we find that BofA has
been talking to the U.S. government since December in regards to Merrill's
disastrous quarter and not going through with the acquisition without government
guarantees. I mean, Lewis is either inept or he lied to investors. While nothing
is certain in business, models should have been able to have given best and
worst case scenarios, as well as a probable scenario. If Lewis was using the
optimistic scenario in saying the dividend was safe, etc., then he was lying,
because he had to choose what to represent to investors. I don't believe that
he just didn't see the less than rosy models that are out there.

Summing it up, we live in a society that tolerates lying as part of normal
social behavior in the form of "white lies". We expect politicians to lie to
us. We accept that CEOs lie to us. I am here to say, "where does it end?" I
am hopeful that the pendulum will swing so far that leaders start being convicted
by their lack of ethics, rather than specifics laws that can be proven to have
been broken.

I believe change comes from the top, and that we look to our leaders to set
the example. That can be in a family or a group of friends. It is certainly
a part of corporate culture, given the hierarchical organization structure.
Our elected officials too, need to do more than avoid getting caught breaking
laws. They need to make decisions to do the right thing. They need to be held
to a higher standard than the rest of us.

President Barack Obama will have to have very broad shoulders in order to
carry the burden of putting this country on the straight and narrow in terms
of ethical behavior. He already has his hands full trying to clean up the economic
mess the world is currently int. I am hopeful that he can provide the confidence
and policies that allow the U.S. and the rest of the world, to overcome the
current economic malaise as well as to set a new standard in ethical behavior.

Regulatory reforms that emerge on his watch have an ability to change the
financial landscape in very positive and meaningful ways. I am hopeful that
trickles down to less latitude on the part of CEOs in being able to meaningfully
distort the truth when speaking with investors.

No one should have to tolerate being lied to.

I hope you have enjoyed this weekly article. You may send comments to mark@stockbarometer.com.
Please don't be shy in expressing your opinions of what you would like to see
covered.

If you are receiving these alerts on a free trial, you have access to all
of our previous articles and recommendations by clicking
here.If you do not recall your username and/or password, please email
us at customersupport@stockbarometer.com.
If you are interested in continuing to receive our service after your free
trial, please
click here. A subscription to this service is only $8.95/month. To
receive a 20% discount on the subscription price, an annual subscription is
available by clicking
here.

Important Disclosure: Futures, Options, Mutual Fund, ETF and Equity
trading have large potential rewards, but also large potential risk. You must
be aware of the risks and be willing to accept them in order to invest in these
markets. Don't trade with money you can't afford to lose. This is neither a
solicitation nor an offer to buy/sell Futures, Options, Mutual Funds or Equities.
No representation is being made that any account will or is likely to achieve
profits or losses similar to those discussed on this Web site. The past performance
of any trading system or methodology is not necessarily indicative of future
results.

Performance results are hypothetical. Hypothetical or simulated performance
results have certain inherent limitations. Unlike an actual performance record,
simulated results do not represent actual trading. Also, since the trades have
not actually been executed, the results may have under- or over-compensated
for the impact, if any, of certain market factors, such as a lack of liquidity.
Simulated trading programs in general are also subject to the fact that they
are designed with the benefit of hindsight. No representation is being made
that any account will or is likely to achieve profits or losses similar to
those shown.

Investment Research Group and all individuals affiliated with Investment Research
Group assume no responsibilities for your trading and investment results.

Investment Research Group (IRG), as a publisher of a financial newsletter
of general and regular circulation, cannot tender individual investment advice.
Only a registered broker or investment adviser may advise you individually
on the suitability and performance of your portfolio or specific investments.

In making any investment decision, you will rely solely on your own review
and examination of the fact and records relating to such investments. Past
performance of our recommendations is not an indication of future performance.
The publisher shall have no liability of whatever nature in respect of any
claims, damages, loss, or expense arising out of or in connection with the
reliance by you on the contents of our Web site, any promotion, published material,
alert, or update.

For a complete understanding of the risks associated with trading, see our Risk
Disclosure.